Christians vs. nonChristians on issues

[John McIlroy]

That's a fun debate... but it it gets a little tiring after the 200th time. But it is very logical to me... let's leave it at that. I was more interested in Eric's Biblical conditional statement.

[John McIlroy]

Wow! Did you read this post before you sent it? Quite the maniacal screed!

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate. :laugh: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Fisher]

Richard Stringer wrote: I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Hmmmm... How do we know that you haven't already redifined logic? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." Well, the argument from design is problematic - as it's quite reasonable for the properties of natural objects to arise from iterative application of simple laws (such as physics). The argument from incredulity goes along the lines of "Surely the universe can't exist without God!" The argument from nature is essentially "look at the pretty bunny - God created that" And the argument from The Bible is a form of circular reasoning. OTOH, 1+1=2 is something that can be validated and consistent within the mathematical framework, which is rigorous. It's like the common question asked on talk.origins which is never answered: "What is the scientific theory of creationism?" In the same way - what is the logical/scientific argument that God exists? If you're using logic or science - then you're within the bounds of naturalistic investigation. *That's* why the arguments I mentioned are inadequate or faulty - because they are either supernaturalistic and tharefore outside the bounds of human logic, or are naturalistic and inadequately supported by the evidence. 1+1=2 is an entirely naturalistic statement, and therefore can be investigated :-)

---

Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[Brit]

John Fisher wrote: As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. Well, that may be, but I'm just pointing out that the boolean function "GodWroteTheBible()" needs a little more elaboration in order to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. All Christians would say "God wrote the Bible", but some would say that "all opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion" and other Christians would say, "most opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion". Now you can argue about who is right, but the boolean function is misleading because all Christian can agree with "God wrote the Bible", but disagree with "all opinions in the Bible are God's opinions". Hence, he needs to rewrite it as such:

if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( AllOpinionsInTheBibleAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
if ( TheBiblesStatementsOnHomosexualityAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}
}

You've talked about why people might have psychological reasons to ignore certain parts of the Bible. That is true, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. Presumably, you are arguing that those people are wrong. But, then, whether they're right or wrong isn't really the point. The point is that they are acting rationally within their framework of belief. "Acting rationally within their framework of belief" is also the reason that I say Christians are acting rationally if they say homosexuality is wrong. John Fisher wrote: Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. Well, that may be true, but we run in different social circles. Ultimately, a lot of this discussion touches on one of my big problems with religion: a lack of verification. Theoretically, God doesn't need to write a book. He can talk to people directly. Instead, all religions have a book (or books) which are supposed to be the final say on the matter. But, peopl

[Richard Stringer]

Because I am still using binary logic and don't need a third ambigious state (quantum logic perhaps ) for my state diagrams to function. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare

[Christian Graus]

Terry O`Nolley wrote: You are right - you have called your fellow man an idiot. Terry, we've established that you have no idea what Christianity means, why should I therefore be constrained by your deluded definitions ? You may be interested to know that Jesus drove people out of the temple with a hastily fashioned whip. He did a lot of other things that may surprise you, such as saying He came not to bring peace, but a sword. He certainly was no wimp, and His mission was not to make people into wimps, either. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder

[John Fisher]

Who invoked a third ambiguous state? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: And the argument from The Bible is a form of circular reasoning. OTOH, 1+1=2 is something that can be validated and consistent within the mathematical framework, which is rigorous. You shouldn't have placed those so close together, because "within the mathematical framework" would also be a form of circular reasoning, too. Also, you must not have heard many of the arguments, because there are reasons to believe the Bible without circular reasoning. (Archeological research that match with statements written afterward and prophecies written beforehand, and other things.) Ian Darling wrote: 1+1=2 is an entirely naturalistic statement, and therefore can be investigated Ok. Here's a "naturalistic statement" that can be investigated to a degree. All observable evidence suggests that everything existing in our universe has a source or cause of existence. So, you can ignore that logic, or reasonably conclude that the universe must have had an external cause, or illogically decide that the universe could create itself. Alternately, you could provide evidence that things can come into existence without anything else being involved. (You'll have hard time with that one though, after work like that done by Pasteur.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Richard Stringer]

Anyone who tries to use logic to prove the existance of a superior being. If you don't believe it - try writing a state machine that will have a state that is defined as "faith" Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare

[John Fisher]

Brit wrote: The point is that they are acting rationally within their framework of belief. "Acting rationally within their framework of belief" is also the reason that I say Christians are acting rationally if they say homosexuality is wrong. What do they say the framework of their belief is? If their framework is a reasonable understanding of the Bible (in the way that you would read normal letters, historical documents, and poetry), then they have left their framework of belief. Brit wrote: Theoretically, God doesn't need to write a book. He can talk to people directly. He did, and as a whole, people didn't act any differently in response to Him than they do now. So, why would Him speaking to us be better than writing to us? People wonder a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that solid answers are unavailable. The questions you brought up do have answers and they don't require "interpretation" nearly as much as you might think. Simply correlating different passages, using a normal understanding of what you read can provide the answers to those questions. Brit wrote: If people knew for certain God's opinions on these matters, there wouldn't be much of a problem. That statement is easily demonstrated to be false, since so many people throughout history have flat out rejected any claim that God had on their life, even without a so-called logical reason to do so. People all over the place do what they want to do without needing reasons (until someone asks them why they did it). Brit wrote: Instead, people are left "out in the cold" fighting over this or that doctrine - both wanting to follow God's laws - while, presumably, God watches silently. No they're not. And God isn't silent. He uses people who truly follow Him to tell others about Himself. That there is a massive number of statements from many different religious ideas in the world today does not mean that one of them cannot be correct. If you assume for a while that the Bible is really true, there are ways to validate that truthfullness. On the other hand, if you reject that possibility beforehand because it is difficult to correlate the differing opinions, then the problems cannot be resolved in your mind. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: You shouldn't have placed those so close together, because "within the mathematical framework" would also be a form of circular reasoning, too. Also, you must not have heard many of the arguments, because there are reasons to believe the Bible without circular reasoning. (Archeological research that match with statements written afterward and prophecies written beforehand, and other things.) Actually, I was referring to the circular argument "The Bible must be true because God says so, and God exists because The Bible says so". Which is usually the level of argument given :-) As for the archaeological evidence - that doesn't prove anything with regard to Gods existence, purely that some guy managed to write some things down and they were propogated into the Bible. And even then there are problems the earlier you go (I think the problem is that the approximate date for the Flood that is commonly given (approx 2,500BC, IIRC) places it right at the height of the Egyptian empire, and there's nothing to indicate that Noahs sons went and repopulated Egypt, then enslaved the rest of the Hebrew people). So even if some aspects of Scripture are accurate (or even prophetic), you still have the problem that some bits of it *aren't* accurate in the slightest. Of course, this leads us back into our Creationist debate from before. :-) John Fisher wrote: Ok. Here's a "naturalistic statement" that can be investigated to a degree. All observable evidence suggests that everything existing in our universe has a source or cause of existence. So, you can ignore that logic, or reasonably conclude that the universe must have had an external cause, or illogically decide that the universe could create itself. Alternately, you could provide evidence that things can come into existence without anything else being involved. (You'll have hard time with that one though, after work like that done by Pasteur.) You make the assumption that the universe has had to come "into" existence and therefore required an initial cause. What if the universe always existed? I seem to recall an argument (it might have been in Hawkings Brief History of Time, but don't quote me on that), that if the big-bang to big-crunch cycle existed, one universes big bang was caused due to the collapse of a previous universe. Due to the "crunch", we lose all observable evidence from the previous universe, effectively meaning that the current one has no disc

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: Actually, I was referring to the circular argument "The Bible must be true because God says so, and God exists because The Bible says so". Which is usually the level of argument given Yes, I've heard that and marvel that people even waste their breath on presenting something like that. Ian Darling wrote: As for the archaeological evidence - that doesn't prove anything with regard to Gods existence, purely that some guy managed to write some things down and they were propogated into the Bible. The accuracy rate of the predictions is what you should look at. It is clear from the evidence presented that the prophecies were most probably written before the events took place. These prophecies are not vague, and the details are accurate enough to be at least impressive. Ian Darling wrote: And even then there are problems the earlier you go (I think the problem is that the approximate date for the Flood that is commonly given (approx 2,500BC, IIRC) places it right at the height of the Egyptian empire, and there's nothing to indicate that Noahs sons went and repopulated Egypt, then enslaved the rest of the Hebrew people). Now you're assuming that the archeological assumptions about the past are more correct than the texts that claim to be eyewitness accounts. In light of our previous discussion about "truth" in historical research, I would say that you must first decide whether these can really be considered eyewitness accounts before asserting that our modern guesses are more accurate. Ian Darling wrote: ... I won't pretend that's convincing, but it is an alternative viewpoint. It's not convincing, and it's been called the "Steady State Theory" I think. I'm not sure if it makes sense to anyone, but it has been proposed. Ian Darling wrote: One of the issues raised is the inability of science so far to investiage the Big Bang data prior to a certain point (it's something to do with Planck lengths or something like that). That should be taken as a serious challenge to the big bang hypothesis. People are asserting that everything came from a very miniscule item, but are unable to produce measurements that truly indicate that. Makes you wonder. Ian Darling wrote: As for Pasteur - I'm not familiar with what you're referring to beyond Pasteurisation. His work in showing that spontaneous generat

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: Yes, I've heard that and marvel that people even waste their breath on presenting something like that. At least we agree on something :-) John Fisher wrote: The accuracy rate of the predictions is what you should look at. It is clear from the evidence presented that the prophecies were most probably written before the events took place. These prophecies are not vague, and the details are accurate enough to be at least impressive. Is there somewhere I can look at to verify these? The thing with prophecy (and yes, I did have a familiarity with scripture - just not any in the last five years or so), is that it's quite possible to write something and retroactively apply it later on. I haven't looked at Scripture since becoming an atheist, so I'm pretty rusty. John Fisher wrote: Now you're assuming that the archeological assumptions about the past are more correct than the texts that claim to be eyewitness accounts. In light of our previous discussion about "truth" in historical research, I would say that you must first decide whether these can really be considered eyewitness accounts before asserting that our modern guesses are more accurate. Well, then you have to show that they are eyewitness accounts, and not nth-hand anecdotes (you did notice the similarity between Glgamesh and Noah, right?). If there are original documents, then these can be dated and even placed somewhere, based on the materials used to record the events. If there aren't then there are probably a range of linguistic and historical techniques that can be used - how things have been translated and so forth. John Fisher wrote: That should be taken as a serious challenge to the big bang hypothesis. People are asserting that everything came from a very miniscule item, but are unable to produce measurements that truly indicate that. Makes you wonder. Given the measurements so far IIRC go back to the point of nanoseconds after the Big Band, it's not an unreasonable suggestion that prior to that things were behaving simliar. We're only able to measure to the attosecond level at the moment anyway, and if you're familiar with Heisenberg, then you'll know that there's a level of accuracy regarding velocity/position we so far cannot measure beyond. At this point, my physics education fails me. John Fisher wrote: His work in showing that spontaneous generation didn't

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: God started the universe? No real problem with that notion, although I don't accept it personally, even if I don't have a full alternative explaination (yet). However, when God is claimed as the cause of a naturalistic event, then we can investigate that. I know you're capable of some good thinking, so please take another look at those few sentences. If you don't want to modify them afterward, I'll still try to be nice. :-D Ian Darling wrote: At least we agree on something :rolleyes: Ian Darling wrote: Is there somewhere I can look at to verify these? The thing with prophecy (and yes, I did have a familiarity with scripture - just not any in the last five years or so), is that it's quite possible to write something and retroactively apply it later on. I haven't looked at Scripture since becoming an atheist, so I'm pretty rusty. Well, I haven't hunted the internet for this stuff before, so I don't have any links handy yet. There are a few books that do a good job of dealing with this subject though. One of them is Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's been around for several years and there are also some "sequels". If you just want to get a little starter information, the best thing to look for is prophecies of the Messiah. (Hunt for something like "Messianic prophecies fulfilled Bible" on google.) Sure, some of them aren't exactly easy to see as prophecy, but others are quite obvious. Focus on them, then notice how minute the probability is that anyone could have matched all of them (even just the clear ones). As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus met them, and not only from the Bible. Ian Darling wrote: Well, then you have to show that they are eyewitness accounts, and not nth-hand anecdotes (you did notice the similarity between Glgamesh and Noah, right?). If there are original documents, then these can be dated and even placed somewhere, based on the materials used to record the events. If there aren't then there are probably a range of linguistic and historical techniques that can be used - how things have been translated and so forth. Actually, the text itself is claiming to be an eyewitness account. So really the proof required is that of showing it to be a forgery, not that I have to prove it was an eyewitness account (though that doesn't hurt me to try). This is the way things work in most historical re

[Brit]

John Fisher wrote: He did, and as a whole, people didn't act any differently in response to Him than they do now. So, why would Him speaking to us be better than writing to us? First, it's a matter of verifiability. Let me use an example: according to the Bible, different prophets appeared in the Old Testament to warn the Jews about this or that and they didn't respond to the prophet. This raises two problems: (1) Did this situation actually happen - afterall, we have to assume the Bible is true in the first place to believe that people didn't respond to God's prophet, (2) people don't know if a particular person IS God's prophet. If a man stops you on the street today and tells you that the end is near, how are you supposed to know whether he is simply crazy or if he really is speaking God's message? The reality is that you cannot know. You have to guess. The reason dialog with God is better than a book is that only God can speak directly. All religions have books. Books are interpreted. Books are written by all the false religions. Books don't reply when you ask questions like, "Are all the Buddists going to hell?" and "Why don't you reveal yourself to the Buddists so that they don't die in their sin? Don't you want to save people?" John Fisher wrote: That statement is easily demonstrated to be false, since so many people throughout history have flat out rejected any claim that God had on their life, even without a so-called logical reason to do so. People all over the place do what they want to do without needing reasons (until someone asks them why they did it). The fact that people reject any claim that God had on their life does not prove that there aren't people who wouldn't follow God's opinions on these matters. Both exist. Hence, my statement is not easily proven false. John Fisher wrote: No they're not. And God isn't silent. He uses people who truly follow Him to tell others about Himself. The Muslims, Hindus, and Buddists all tell me that they are speaking on God's behalf, too. I'm supposed to pick Christianity over those religions based on the fact that someone is trying to convince me it is true? That does not distinguish Christianity from other religions in any manner whatsoever. If God truely wants to save people through Jesus, He has the capacity and motive to reveal Christianity as divinely inspired and differenciate it from all the other religions. John Fisher

[John Fisher]

Brit wrote: The fact that people reject any claim that God had on their life does not prove that there aren't people who wouldn't follow God's opinions on these matters. Both exist. Hence, my statement is not easily proven false. You stated that if people clearly knew God's opinion, that there wouldn't be much of a problem. Just because some people do obey and care about what God says, doesn't mean that everyone will or that problems will vanish just as soon as everyone knows exactly what God says. That's the part of your statement which would be false. Brit wrote: The Muslims, Hindus, and Buddists all tell me that they are speaking on God's behalf, too. I'm supposed to pick Christianity over those religions based on the fact that someone is trying to convince me it is true? No. You're supposed to compare the reliability of the information they provide. The Bible doesn't change, and you can go out and compare what it says with evidence that has been found. You can do the same with other books. Pick the one that is the most reliable, and you'll end up with the Bible. Brit wrote: If God truely wants to save people through Jesus, He has the capacity and motive to reveal Christianity as divinely inspired and differenciate it from all the other religions. He did this as He supplied and preserved His Word in the Bible. This leads into some of the reasons I think God uses the Bible rather than speaking audibly right now. Speaking to everyone without writing things down does not leave a trail through history that can be traced and validated. If I claimed that God said "so-and-so" to me without you hearing it, why should you believe me if I can't show that He really did say it? (Ok, under your model God could say it again to you. But then we're turning God into an answer box and not giving Him the reverence and awe that He deserves.) You mentioned the prophets above, which isn't and wasn't a problem. When God needed to validate the message of a prophet, He did and expected two things. First, false prophets would not have a perfect track record when considering all of their "thus saith the Lord" statements. So, He expected people to compare the new message with the truth they had been given previously (which started with direct communication from God!) Secondly, if the message couldn't be completely validated by that comparison, God provided a sign or miracle to show people that the prop

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: I know you're capable of some good thinking, so please take another look at those few sentences. If you don't want to modify them afterward, I'll still try to be nice. Well, what I meant to say was right :-D. You can blame that statement on it being 2am and having just had a frustrating blog software upgrade :doh: Right. The gist of it was ok, and what I'm attempting to state is that so far scientific research has no testable theories over the start of the universe (that I know of). Because of this, I can't prove or reasonably propose that there is a naturalistic start to the universe - although it's not an unreasonable claim given we have a good set of naturalistic explainations for a lot of other things - it's just a claim that has nothing to back it up yet. Therefore, a supernaturalistic start to the universe cannot be ruled out. That doesn't mean there is one, just that there's no good information either way. Anyway, supernaturalistic events occur outside what science can investigat, science being an investigation of naturalistic events. The other point is that if there is a testable, reliable, and naturalistic explaination for a phenomenon (such as how a geological feature came about, or how certain chemicals interact, etc), then invoking a supernaturalistic explaination is arguably dubious, and can be quite unhelpful. John Fisher wrote: Actually, the text itself is claiming to be an eyewitness account. So really the proof required is that of showing it to be a forgery, not that I have to prove it was an eyewitness account (though that doesn't hurt me to try). This is the way things work in most historical research, and many people have studied this. The evidence shows that the documents are genuine, and the manuscripts of the Bible are the most copied and easiest to trace of any documents in history. (There is an interesting argument in itself, for those who claim God isn't doing anything to make Himself known.) Errr. Surely the burden of proof is on the claim itself? That is to say that if someone claims that X is an eyewitness account, then the proof has to lie with that person to show that X is exactly that. An unconvinced party under no obligation to prove X is fake first, and does not have to accept X until the original claimant can demonstrate that X was written in the right period of history, in the right region of the world, in an appropriate langauge and on appropriate materials, and that it does no

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: what I'm attempting to state is that so far scientific research has no testable theories over the start of the universe (that I know of). Because of this, I can't prove or reasonably propose that there is a naturalistic start to the universe - although it's not an unreasonable claim given we have a good set of naturalistic explainations for a lot of other things I figured as much, but wanted you to notice that we don't claim a supernatural cause for individual formations or events, as you said here: Ian Darling wrote: The other point is that if there is a testable, reliable, and naturalistic explaination for a phenomenon (such as how a geological feature came about, or how certain chemicals interact, etc), then invoking a supernaturalistic explaination is arguably dubious, and can be quite unhelpful. Instead, the Bible claims that God created the universe with its laws, elements, and structure. Now, he keeps things operating according to the rules that He supplied. Once in a while, he steps in to perform a miracle, but we don't claim that the scientific evidence we look at should cause use to conclude supernatural reasons for its existence, unless the Bible specifically says something about said evidence (which is, um..., rare). God is the cause of the universes existence, and He says so in Genesis. That's an eyewitness account, too! Ian Darling wrote: Surely the burden of proof is on the claim itself? That is to say that if someone claims that X is an eyewitness account, then the proof has to lie with that person to show that X is exactly that. Well, first it isn't that someone is claiming that something else is an eyewitness account. The evidence itself is claiming to be an eyewitness account. So in that light, if I were to tell you that I shook hands with George Bush, what would you do? You would likely believe me unless some other facts that you previously new or you learned later would conflict. Even then, you wouldn't assume that I was wrong, but you would wonder, and start to look at both sides to see which had a better explanation. It works the same way in court. Eyewitnesses are brought in, and are believed, until someone comes up with a reason not to believe them. (If we didn't operate this way, no decisions would be possible, because we wouldn't believe anybody without them first proving that they were right, which would mean that they have to refer to the opinions or stat